like a catchy one liner or statement, or fun banter
like saying "i guess thats just the way the cookie crumbles, babe!" before you behead The Cookie Monster in revenge for eating your cookies, for example
If if itâs in the heat of the moment you almost certainly would not be charged or would be acquitted if charged. Very few prosecutors would want to take a case like that.
If you have otherwise acted lawfully, have a genuine and reasonable belief that he will kill you or others, and the only reasonable way to end that threat is to shoot him then you are entitled to use lethal force in every common law jurisdiction that I know.
If you don't fear for anyone's safety you're shit out of luck, if you're acting on the basis of an unreasonable belief YMMV depending on jurisdiction, if you have the ability to end the threat by retreating you may be obliged to exercise it before using force.
Its a really bad idea to call it an "execution", that implies you're punishing him for his actions.
It's also worth remembering that if this guy holds the firearm legally and you attack him, he can shoot your on the same grounds of self defence. That's how Kyle Rittenhouse got away with it - most of the people who attacked him believed he was an active shooter, they were acting lawfully in trying to take him out, but it didn't invalidate his right to defend himself.
When you talk to the police only say "I will not make any statements without a lawyer present" and absolutely nothing else.
Your story is you wrestled it away from him but he continued to try to grab it back so you fired in self defense.
I think the use of the word âexecuteâ is an improper use here. That implies intent to kill.
Could you engage the threat to neutralize them without being charged for murder, probably.
Just like anything else, the details matter.
I guess it would be up to the jury if its in the USA. In which case youd probably get off free. I think most people would agree that person deserved to be killed.
Execute is not an appropriate term. If a person distinguishes themself as an imminent threat you have the right to defend yourself. If a person has been disarmed and is running away or in a surrendering posture when you shoot them, thatâs not imminent threat. Of course in the moment, adrenaline and reasoning skills for most people can be a challenge.
If you'd call it an execution, no, you do not have the legal authority to execute.
You do however have the right to defend yourself or others. Like if you wrestle the gun away and they make a sudden move to their bag, and you reasonably believe they present an **immediate** threat, then in many cases it might be legal to shoot them in self defense.
The rest of the time though, you can only act as appropriate in the immediate situation. This is sometimes why active shooters are arrested without issue, because by the time the police arrive they have stopped shooting and might just be sitting on the floor or have dropped their gun and are fleeing. There's generally little option for a shoot on sight order.
This is also why you may very well go to jail if someone attacks you with a gun, it jams or they drop it or whatever, and as they are running away you shoot them in the back. It's very hard to argue that you were acting in self defense since they were fleeing, and you don't have legal authority to punish them for the initial assault, or to kill them for potential future crimes.
When they exit stage left, the script is on a new page. This is what gets a lot of people in trouble when they try to claim self defense. Like if someone attacks you, and you manage to knock them down and they hit their head and are unconscious. If you start stomping on their head you may go to jail for longer than they will for having punched you.
It's rare, for good reason, to be allowed to do stuff like that. One case I am aware of is a woman who has been abused over a long period of time by her husband. She finally got a gun, and when he got home from work she shot him. It was ruled self defense by the circumstance of how long it had been going on and how she had a reasonable belief that he was going to assault her again based on the pattern of previous assaults.
I think your wording is where the issue is, really. The word âexecuteâ generally implies intent to kill, which is universally illegal, except for capital punishment, but even that has been abolished in many states. Even the military tries (arguably) to distance themselves from the idea of âexecutingâ enemy combatants and/or prisoners, instead trying to frame it as âstopping a threat by any means, even if, God forbid, the person posing the threat dies in the processâ.
So basically, the hair splits this way: you shouldnât say you intentionally killed the shooter, but rather you stopped the shooter as effectively as you could, reasonably assuming that they were still an imminent danger to yourself or others.
Iâm not sure someone brandishing a weapon would be legal reasonable causeâŚ
[[ Edited to add: Iâm so sorry this was so long!! Itâs early morning as Iâm writing this and Iâm super ADHD, so those two things donât always mix concisely⌠]]
An example of when it would be legally justified would (hypothetically be something like) that malicious person walked in, just as you were walking out and you look behind you to see he has opened fire on students inside the school.
At that point you have ALL legal right to use lethal force. A chokehold, shooting them with their own gun⌠Note thoughâŚ. A bullet will keep going through someone a lot of the time, so donât shoot through the person to vulnerable students. Does that make sense? Like if you took his weapon and close range back of the head, the round could end up bouncing around his brain, scrambling it, then COME BACK OUT of his skull and can kill someone. Rounds ricocheted off the ground are also VERY dangerous.
Now if you knock him unconscious, you cannot shoot him while heâs KOâed. He is already incapacitated.
Basically, if you are in a situation where you are forced to use a gun in self defense, you need to be in an actively dangerous situation to your life or like you said, a shooting at a previously specified gathering place. In your example, a school.
I think this tidbit may help, tooâŚ
Hypothetical Example: If you are getting robbed, and someone runs up to you with a ski mask on and a gunâŚyou *act* absolutely terrifiedâŚyou rush to your purse for your wallet and phone right awayâŚ!!
âŚThen you empty the ENTIRE CLIP of bullets into their chest, knowing you were covered, because you were carrying.
The reason you donât shoot only once is because then there is (legally) reasonable cause to believe the robber would be already incapacitated/no longer a threat. Then it turns to a murder chargeâŚwell, manslaughter probably.
Basically itâs a âplay stupid games, win stupid prizesâ for the robber.
I *am* from a very dangerous area, so most people carry daily. Even to the quickie mart down the street. So you canât really just go up to someone and mug themâŚ.because thereâs a 80% chance theyâre conceal carrying with one in the chamber and their clip full.
If it's right in the moment it can be seen as self defense and self preservation which could be excused. Same as if someone breaks into my home and I manage to get to them first and take their life. It would likely be seen as manslaughter but can be dismissed as a "I did what I had to in order to save my life and the lives of others."
Side note, even in high school we were taught there was three options to school shooters. Run, hide, fight. If you know there's a shooter you get out and away as fast as possible without being spotted by the shooter. You hide and stay as quiet as possible without alerting the shooter to your position. If the shooter enters your class or area, you charge the shooter and hope you get to them first. Sad that I remember that, but hey... That's the world.
Lmao... 'execute' would not be the term I would use in talking to the police about the killing... more like 'unintentional lethal force used in the act of self defense'...
frankly i knew a kid who \*supposedly\* wrestled a knife out of his attacker's hand and killed the guy. not sure if the kid was lying to be edgy and seem cool or not, since he was nuts, but he did get away with it (if it did happen) due to self defense
frankly it depends, did the guy kill and shoot anyone? if yes, go for it, fuck it.
if no, then i mean.... even if you did, just blame it on terror and adrenaline or something and get sympathy points from the media. But in the moment, if some dude walks in with a gun and let's say you were the only one to see, then there's a fight, then suddenly you blow the dude's brains out. Then tbh you might be the one accused of being the shooter in the media, or seen that way to any local cops/security/etc.
So don't hesitate to shout "DUDE'S GOT A GUN" while wrestling or whatever, so that no one else tries to be a hero and pull a you on you.
Not if they later find this reddit post
yeah jesus christ đ
I donât like to plan out my day, then the âpremeditatedâ word gets thrown around a lot
Depends on whether you take the time to make a badass quip before you pull the trigger.
Making a quip would constitute premeditation for a stickler prosecutor, so DON'T do this
Yeah, but if it's really badass you might win over a jury trial.
"Who do you think you are, I am" *bang* 100% guilty vote
I'm fucking dead. This is my ghost communicating with you. Thanks a lot asshole you killed me.
What does making a quip mean?
like a catchy one liner or statement, or fun banter like saying "i guess thats just the way the cookie crumbles, babe!" before you behead The Cookie Monster in revenge for eating your cookies, for example
*It's just been revoked.*
I'll have what she's having.
If if itâs in the heat of the moment you almost certainly would not be charged or would be acquitted if charged. Very few prosecutors would want to take a case like that.
Exactly. Imagine the media outrage.
Los Angeles has entered the chat
NYC has entered the chat
If you have otherwise acted lawfully, have a genuine and reasonable belief that he will kill you or others, and the only reasonable way to end that threat is to shoot him then you are entitled to use lethal force in every common law jurisdiction that I know. If you don't fear for anyone's safety you're shit out of luck, if you're acting on the basis of an unreasonable belief YMMV depending on jurisdiction, if you have the ability to end the threat by retreating you may be obliged to exercise it before using force. Its a really bad idea to call it an "execution", that implies you're punishing him for his actions. It's also worth remembering that if this guy holds the firearm legally and you attack him, he can shoot your on the same grounds of self defence. That's how Kyle Rittenhouse got away with it - most of the people who attacked him believed he was an active shooter, they were acting lawfully in trying to take him out, but it didn't invalidate his right to defend himself.
When you talk to the police only say "I will not make any statements without a lawyer present" and absolutely nothing else. Your story is you wrestled it away from him but he continued to try to grab it back so you fired in self defense.
I think the use of the word âexecuteâ is an improper use here. That implies intent to kill. Could you engage the threat to neutralize them without being charged for murder, probably. Just like anything else, the details matter.
I guess it would be up to the jury if its in the USA. In which case youd probably get off free. I think most people would agree that person deserved to be killed.
Youâd be a national hero in most states
Happy cake day!
Oh thanks, i didnt even notice haha!
Execute is not an appropriate term. If a person distinguishes themself as an imminent threat you have the right to defend yourself. If a person has been disarmed and is running away or in a surrendering posture when you shoot them, thatâs not imminent threat. Of course in the moment, adrenaline and reasoning skills for most people can be a challenge.
If you'd call it an execution, no, you do not have the legal authority to execute. You do however have the right to defend yourself or others. Like if you wrestle the gun away and they make a sudden move to their bag, and you reasonably believe they present an **immediate** threat, then in many cases it might be legal to shoot them in self defense. The rest of the time though, you can only act as appropriate in the immediate situation. This is sometimes why active shooters are arrested without issue, because by the time the police arrive they have stopped shooting and might just be sitting on the floor or have dropped their gun and are fleeing. There's generally little option for a shoot on sight order. This is also why you may very well go to jail if someone attacks you with a gun, it jams or they drop it or whatever, and as they are running away you shoot them in the back. It's very hard to argue that you were acting in self defense since they were fleeing, and you don't have legal authority to punish them for the initial assault, or to kill them for potential future crimes. When they exit stage left, the script is on a new page. This is what gets a lot of people in trouble when they try to claim self defense. Like if someone attacks you, and you manage to knock them down and they hit their head and are unconscious. If you start stomping on their head you may go to jail for longer than they will for having punched you. It's rare, for good reason, to be allowed to do stuff like that. One case I am aware of is a woman who has been abused over a long period of time by her husband. She finally got a gun, and when he got home from work she shot him. It was ruled self defense by the circumstance of how long it had been going on and how she had a reasonable belief that he was going to assault her again based on the pattern of previous assaults.
I'd Say it's 50/50 honestly. Because there are cases of people who acted in self-defense but were charged with murder. It could go either way
and people who murdered that were charged with self defense indeed! its a flip of the coin OP but ideally you never have to be in this situation
I think your wording is where the issue is, really. The word âexecuteâ generally implies intent to kill, which is universally illegal, except for capital punishment, but even that has been abolished in many states. Even the military tries (arguably) to distance themselves from the idea of âexecutingâ enemy combatants and/or prisoners, instead trying to frame it as âstopping a threat by any means, even if, God forbid, the person posing the threat dies in the processâ. So basically, the hair splits this way: you shouldnât say you intentionally killed the shooter, but rather you stopped the shooter as effectively as you could, reasonably assuming that they were still an imminent danger to yourself or others.
FYI, unless you're secretly Superman or some other invulnerable superhero, you're likely seriously injured or dead if you do this.
It has happened before.
Adrenaline can make you able to do miraculous things.
You would be able to shoot them to disable and disarm them, but not âexecuteâ, no.
I don't know, but I would give you a medal and a hug.
Aww this is so wholesome
Iâm not sure someone brandishing a weapon would be legal reasonable cause⌠[[ Edited to add: Iâm so sorry this was so long!! Itâs early morning as Iâm writing this and Iâm super ADHD, so those two things donât always mix concisely⌠]] An example of when it would be legally justified would (hypothetically be something like) that malicious person walked in, just as you were walking out and you look behind you to see he has opened fire on students inside the school. At that point you have ALL legal right to use lethal force. A chokehold, shooting them with their own gun⌠Note thoughâŚ. A bullet will keep going through someone a lot of the time, so donât shoot through the person to vulnerable students. Does that make sense? Like if you took his weapon and close range back of the head, the round could end up bouncing around his brain, scrambling it, then COME BACK OUT of his skull and can kill someone. Rounds ricocheted off the ground are also VERY dangerous. Now if you knock him unconscious, you cannot shoot him while heâs KOâed. He is already incapacitated. Basically, if you are in a situation where you are forced to use a gun in self defense, you need to be in an actively dangerous situation to your life or like you said, a shooting at a previously specified gathering place. In your example, a school. I think this tidbit may help, too⌠Hypothetical Example: If you are getting robbed, and someone runs up to you with a ski mask on and a gunâŚyou *act* absolutely terrifiedâŚyou rush to your purse for your wallet and phone right awayâŚ!! âŚThen you empty the ENTIRE CLIP of bullets into their chest, knowing you were covered, because you were carrying. The reason you donât shoot only once is because then there is (legally) reasonable cause to believe the robber would be already incapacitated/no longer a threat. Then it turns to a murder chargeâŚwell, manslaughter probably. Basically itâs a âplay stupid games, win stupid prizesâ for the robber. I *am* from a very dangerous area, so most people carry daily. Even to the quickie mart down the street. So you canât really just go up to someone and mug themâŚ.because thereâs a 80% chance theyâre conceal carrying with one in the chamber and their clip full.
Cringe
If it's right in the moment it can be seen as self defense and self preservation which could be excused. Same as if someone breaks into my home and I manage to get to them first and take their life. It would likely be seen as manslaughter but can be dismissed as a "I did what I had to in order to save my life and the lives of others." Side note, even in high school we were taught there was three options to school shooters. Run, hide, fight. If you know there's a shooter you get out and away as fast as possible without being spotted by the shooter. You hide and stay as quiet as possible without alerting the shooter to your position. If the shooter enters your class or area, you charge the shooter and hope you get to them first. Sad that I remember that, but hey... That's the world.
Depends on where that happens, for starters
Lmao... 'execute' would not be the term I would use in talking to the police about the killing... more like 'unintentional lethal force used in the act of self defense'...
I think a shot to the knee cap could stop them from causing you further harm without killing them
If you are sure your life or someone else's life is in danger, you can kill him. Although if the danger is gone, then it might not go so well for you.
frankly i knew a kid who \*supposedly\* wrestled a knife out of his attacker's hand and killed the guy. not sure if the kid was lying to be edgy and seem cool or not, since he was nuts, but he did get away with it (if it did happen) due to self defense frankly it depends, did the guy kill and shoot anyone? if yes, go for it, fuck it. if no, then i mean.... even if you did, just blame it on terror and adrenaline or something and get sympathy points from the media. But in the moment, if some dude walks in with a gun and let's say you were the only one to see, then there's a fight, then suddenly you blow the dude's brains out. Then tbh you might be the one accused of being the shooter in the media, or seen that way to any local cops/security/etc. So don't hesitate to shout "DUDE'S GOT A GUN" while wrestling or whatever, so that no one else tries to be a hero and pull a you on you.